Original Intent And The United States Constitution Essay

Original Intent And The United States Constitution Essay

Originalism is an aspect that is employed during legal texts interpretation like the Constitution. The originalists believe that there is a need to ensure that originality is maintained within the constitutional text, which means the public meaning should be similar to when it was made a law.[1] As a result, it is easier to acknowledge the constitutional text’s meaning from other texts that might borrow a leaf from it, like the grammar books, dictionaries, and various legal texts. Hence, the motive behind the constitutional text is more objective, thus the need to avoid subjectivity when interpreting it since it is independent of its founders, framers, and ratifiers’ thinking. The originalism aspect is framed within the two-century-long movement of the Constitution. Therefore, some important factors to consider when determining constitutional text originalism regarding the national government institutions Original Intent And The United States Constitution Essay.

PLACE YOUR ORDER HERE

For instance, before 1789, America had no presidential system, including the current supreme court.[2] However, the constitution framers had to ensure that the country’s politics proceeded with the presidential election being carried out every four years with House elections being carried out after two years. Despite such amendment, the framers had to ensure that they were objective since if they were subjective to the Constitution’s originality, they would have provided power to a single president to run the whole country for years. Such powers would have implicated the current United States electoral system that prevents one winner from taking over all U.S. elections as it happens in Britain, where the Constitution can easily change through winning a single election. However, the U.S., despite the major movement winning the Supreme Court majority, could not change the Constitution.[3] However, if the Supreme Court could decide to follow the footsteps of Jim Crow advocates in 1877, the Constitution still did not change. However, such Supreme Court engages in unconstitutional dealing.[4]

Regarding the public policies’ interest in reducing recidivism rates for violent criminals, the original intent of the American Constitution still applies. That is because the most effective way to reduce recidivism is by incarceration.[5] However, before the criminal justice system in the U.S. can make the last verdict to incarcerate a criminal, they have to follow the rule of law.[6] Meaning that, despite the government being superior, there is no way they can violate any law to sentence a criminal without trial. However, once the criminal justice system finds the criminal to have violated any law, at that juncture, the courts can be more subjective on the kind of punishment that the offender needs to be exposed to, like incarceration or incapacitation.[7] Hence, by incorporating a policy that will reduce incarceration without engaging the criminals in parole supervision, the criminal justice will need to be assured that the criminal will not be re-arrested by deciding to retain them further until their attitudes and behaviors change to convince the system. That way, the criminal justice system will have already observed the Constitution requires a fair trial and the kind of punishment that is best for the offender. In conclusion, the original intent of the American Constitution is still upheld even in the criminal justice system Original Intent And The United States Constitution Essay.

 

Bibliography

Carrera, Sergio, Valsamis Mitsilegas, and Marco Stefan. “Criminal Justice, Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law in the Digital Age.” Report of a CEPS and QMUL Task Force (2021).

Danoff and Herbert: Chapters 1-4, 7

Haight, Kristen M. “Paying for the privilege of punishment: reinterpreting excessive fines clause doctrine to allow state prisoners to seek relief from pay-to-stay fees.” Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 62 (2020): 287.

Rosa Rodríguez, Paola I. “Criminal Justice, Due Process and the Rule of Law in Mexico.” Mexican law review 11, no. 2 (2019): 147-171.

Strang, L. J. The Constitutional Communication Model of Originalism from Part I – A Description of Originalism. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Strang, L.J. A Brief History of Originalism in American Constitutional Interpretation from Part I – A Description of Originalism, Cambridge University Press, 2019.

 

[1] Strang, L.J. A Brief History of Originalism in American Constitutional Interpretation from Part I – A Description of Originalism, Cambridge University Press, 2019.

[2] Strang, L.J. The Constitutional Communication Model of Originalism from Part I – A Description of Originalism

Published, Cambridge University Press, 2019.

[3] Danoff and Herbert: Chapters 1-4, 7

[4] Strang, L. J. The Constitutional Communication Model of Originalism from Part I – A Description of Originalism. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

[5] Haight, Kristen M. “Paying for the privilege of punishment: reinterpreting excessive fines clause doctrine to allow state prisoners to seek relief from pay-to-stay fees.” Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 62 (2020): 287.

[6] Rosa Rodríguez, Paola I. “Criminal Justice, Due Process and the Rule of Law in Mexico.” Mexican law review 11, no. 2 (2019): 147-171.

[7] Carrera, Sergio, Valsamis Mitsilegas, and Marco Stefan. “Criminal Justice, Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law in the Digital Age.” Report of a CEPS and QMUL Task Force (2021) Original Intent And The United States Constitution Essay.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW

 INSTRUCTION

 

Describe, discuss, and support your discussion, what does the concept of “original intent” mean to you in relation to The U.S. Constitution.

Does “original intent” apply to one or more of the three (3) primary public policy interest areas you previously identified?  Why or why not?

My policy interest is in policies to reduce the high rate of recidivism among violent criminals in the U. S.

Must have one thread of at least 500–600 words.   For each thread, must support their assertions with at least six (6) scholarly citations in Turabian format.  Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include textbooks, the Bible, scholarly journals, or other referred works Must be plagiarism free. Must cite at least 2 assigned textbooks and readings.

 

Required Reading;

1 – A Brief History of Originalism in American Constitutional Interpretation

from Part I – A Description of Originalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2019

Lee J. Strang

2. 2 – The Constitutional Communication Model of Originalism

from Part I – A Description of Originalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2019

Lee J. Strang

3. Danoff and Herbert: Chapters 1-4, 7 Original Intent And The United States Constitution Essay